The Canadian death metal band Weapon trademarked the name 'Weapon', forcing NWOBHM legends Weapon to change their name to Weapon UK. This is such a douche thing to do if you ask me. Not only is it childish but disrespectful.

Here is an excerpt from the band's Facebook page which I found quite ironic;

"We are moving onwards and upwards, and we urge our supporters to refrain from any name-calling, cyber-bullying and just general trash talk towards the other band. WEAPON is beyond such juvenile behavior and hopefully you are as well. "

What are your thoughts on this?

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

Judging from their status they seem to be aware that this will generally be perceived as a dick move and probably generate backlash, so yeah - why the hell bother to begin with? Unless it was their label or something (didn't they move to Relapse for the new album?), but I find it unlikely. Weird.

The excerpt is from which Weapon's facebook?A sad example of douchebaggery. Some people feel death metal has a reputation for being too commercial, and things like this won't help convince them otherwise. Can't British Weapon contest the trademark? They are much older than Canadian Weapon after all.

The only justification for doing this is essentially to ensure that they're the only band that can release music under the label "Weapon" to prevent dilution of their brand name. It's generally not a concern for art or music though, since it's not usually a big money consumer good. There is some chance of confusion, I suppose, if someone buys a Weapon UK album expecting Weapon CA.

The problem I have with this is not that there are three other metal bands (on the archive), and probably a few others that are also called Weapon. The problem is that this is a farcical concern for an underground metal band, who isn't actually making any money on their physical product. Unless they're actively preparing to be the next Metallica (in which case, good luck with that) it's idiotic to think that their brand could potentially be damaged or watered down by other bands or counterfeiters. No one knows about them to begin with, so they don't have a brand to worry about!

I didn't think Canada was part of the system for international trademark recognition, unless the band registered it in some other country. It might be that the UK Weapon will only have to change its name within Canada.

I didn't think Canada was part of the system for international trademark recognition, unless the band registered it in some other country. It might be that the UK Weapon will only have to change its name within Canada.

No one knows about them to begin with, so they don't have a brand to worry about!

Amen!

What really irritates me about this is that the other Weapon [unknown melodeath band] from Canada also legally had to alter their name, but since both bands are indeed Canadian theirs has to specify the province they're from.

Once upon a time, the abbreviation for Newfoundland was NF, but since the province is officially 'Newfoundland & Labrador' the abbreviation is NL. If a band from the Netherlands wants to call themselves Weapon, they'll have the same abbreviation, thus creating more confusion. I guess this is pretty unlikely to happen, but anyway. Dick move in general, for sure. There are tons of bands named Weapon, some of which are indeed much older than these guys. Trademarking a capitalized noun is retarded. Look how many active bands named Monolith co-exist peacefully:

Well that makes it seem more reasonable... I guess? It's not like album covers are going to change or anything, just whenever you're browsing CD's at a store, the dividers with stickers on them will say Weapon (UK)...

The only justification for doing this is essentially to ensure that they're the only band that can release music under the label "Weapon" to prevent dilution of their brand name. It's generally not a concern for art or music though, since it's not usually a big money consumer good. There is some chance of confusion, I suppose, if someone buys a Weapon UK album expecting Weapon CA.

The problem I have with this is not that there are three other metal bands (on the archive), and probably a few others that are also called Weapon. The problem is that this is a farcical concern for an underground metal band, who isn't actually making any money on their physical product. Unless they're actively preparing to be the next Metallica (in which case, good luck with that) it's idiotic to think that their brand could potentially be damaged or watered down by other bands or counterfeiters. No one knows about them to begin with, so they don't have a brand to worry about!

This is a very good overview of the situation but you're missing one important part. Suppose they decide to let it go and coexist with that other UK band. They play nice.

Then, suppose another bunch of asshats decide to start a new band for shits and giggles and call it Weapon. They trademark it. Now, both the other bands called Weapon are fucked. The Canadian band is fucked because they wanted to play nice. The UK band is fucked because of their own negligence all this time.

I totally agree with you it's a huge stretch to think you you will make it big but trademarking is (all things considered) cheap. Every big band started small, so as soon as you start any venture, you should make sure everything is in order legally. This is first and foremost for your protection and it benefits your fans as well.

It's of course a shrewd business move for the trademark owner but it's also useful and respectful to the consumers. Whether we're talking about big bands or underground bands, who wants to sift through piles of Megadeth records from 7 different bands, 6 of them trying to cash in on what the other one did? It's even worse for smaller bands because they do not benefit from exposure and it is easier for the brand to dilute.

It does suck for the other band but they should have trademarked the name if they wanted to protect themselves.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

So anyone should be able to start his own band and call it Testament? Or Anthrax? Or Immortal?

Sure. Why not? Outside the metal scene it shouldn't matter, and inside the metal scene I'd like to think most people aren't big enough dickbags to use the same name as a well-known, long-standing act like the ones you mentioned.

For example, I reckon there's not a single new metal band that's been formed since Anthrax's debut that has never heard of Anthrax. Outside the metal scene, a year before the thrash band formed, there began a British punk band called Anthrax. If they'd trademarked it, the band you know and love as Anthrax would either have a different name or have to be referred to in text as Anthrax (US).

Then, on the other side of the coin, what harm is there in unknown bands having the same name? I could start a band right now with the same name as some random underground rock band in Indonesia and not realize it - what's wrong with that? If they hit it big should my band have to change our name out of deference to their popularity and/or ego? Fuck that.

So yes, generally speaking anyone should be able to name their band whatever they see fit. Note that I said generally speaking. There are certain exceptions to every single thing on Earth. For example, I'll note that after the bullshit drama between Gaahl and Infernus, it's good that there aren't two Gorgoroths. Or two bands named Rhapsody instead of the much tidier Rhapsody of Fire [ex-Rhapsody] and Luca Turilli's Rhapsody. But I figured that much was obvious - that bands who split asunder to form two unique entities should always end up with two different names.

_________________

Count Dirt Nap on DragonForce wrote:

What happened to their old vocalist? Did he move SOOOO FAAAAAR AWAAAAYYYYY?

Before anyone starts accusing Weapon of anything, did you pause to ask why this decision was made?

Weapon did the copyright due to the Weapon-UK going back on their own word. The two bands had decided to co-exist since 2005 when Weapon-UK reformed for live gigs. (Weapon having formed in 2003, when Weapon-UK was split up). The British band started harassing Weapon since the latter's recent climb in popularity after signing with Relapse Records. This is when Weapon and their lawyer Eric Greif copyrighted the name to ensure their own future; if you do a little research, you will find that Weapon-UK contacted everyone with the name Weapon with their own copyright claim. Unfortunately, their own plan backfired on them.

Weapon took the high road in all this, by asking people on their Facebook page to NOT cyber bully Weapon-UK (something that the Brits were doing on Weapon's page). They were perfectly okay with the co-existing with the British band because it's not like anyone would have confused the two bands. Weapon-UK brought this upon themselves.

This has nothing to do with trying to be the next Metallica. Weapon are just looking out for themselves, as any clear-thinking and ambitious band should.

Sure. Why not? Outside the metal scene it shouldn't matter, and inside the metal scene I'd like to think most people aren't big enough dickbags to use the same name as a well-known, long-standing act like the ones you mentioned.

Society cannot unfortunately function on the principle that people aren't dickbags. That's why there are rules and laws. Most people aren't big enough dickbags to burn your house down but some people will do that.

Pale_Pilgrim wrote:

Then, on the other side of the coin, what harm is there in unknown bands having the same name? I could start a band right now with the same name as some random underground rock band in Indonesia and not realize it - what's wrong with that?

Cause it creates confusion. Makes it harder to track them down on the internet, properly identify them, find their merchandise, tour dates, etc...

Without trademarks, the world would be polluted with copycats. It's not just metal bands. It's everything else too. Every product you can think of, every franchise. Cars, movies, restaurants, etc... music labels too. This includes people who want to fuck you over and abuse your good name. Without those laws, that Monolith example above would be extremely common in all spheres of our lives. This is just bad.

Most bands care about their identity. Most don't want this dilution to happen and in order to do that, they trademark their name. People on this thread act as if Weapon are the only band to ever protect themselves. It's cheap, it's wise and it's worth it.

Pale_Pilgrim wrote:

So yes, generally speaking anyone should be able to name their band whatever they see fit. Note that I said generally speaking. There are certain exceptions to every single thing on Earth. For example, I'll note that after the bullshit drama between Gaahl and Infernus, it's good that there aren't two Gorgoroths.

This is again relying on good faith. Trademarks exist specifically to avoid having two Gorgoroths. These laws are there so that this drama doesn't snowball into something worse. Same thing with the current Queensryche situation which would be a lot worse without those laws.

I just think you haven't properly imagined what a world would be like without trademarks. It would be extremely confusing and not very comforting for people who work hard at something, whether it's being in a band or something else.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

The more I read the more I'm ok with this. Copyrighting once you're signed to a reasonably large label is hardly some little upstart band getting ahead of themselves. And as AJNA said, they formed while the UK band was inactive, and UK weapon was far from a legendarily noteworthy band which would be noticeable to anyone forming a band.

Plus it's a shit name anyway haha.

_________________

Naamath wrote:

No comments, no words need it, no BM, no compromise, only grains in her face.

Copyright and trademark are different concepts in intellectual property, neither of which should be used as verbs really. One registers a trademark or copyright rather than trademarking or copyrighting. With a band name, talking about copyright is incorrect, it is a trademark (although band logos are another matter).

Trademark law serves to protect consumer association with marks (words, symbols, and a variety of less common things) related to a specific set of goods. Canadian trademark law prohibits names that are, among other things, confusing given the circumstances in that case. The factors are delineated here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-13/section-6.html.

Since we have no information showing a court decision, what has happened is really an agreement between the bands, which is how one of the band's wikipedia page describes it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_%28band%29. Keep in mind that this agreement likely followed a strongly worded letter detailing how the more popular Canadian band was using the name while the UK band was inactive for 7 or so years.

A more metal way of thinking about this is to go back towards the origin of trademarks and think about how blacksmiths would put their symbol on the sword they made. If my sword with an ox symbol on it breaks or is awesome I know to attribute this product to John Smith so when you have a bunch of people putting little ox stamps on swords things get confusing. While giving John Smith the right to use a simple mark like an ox to the exclusion of others may seem unfair, trademark laws are at their heart designed to protect the consumer association between the ox symbol and John Smith's swords. In the US (which is a Madrid system member) a prior unregistered user of a mark can continue use in their geographic area but I don't know how Canada approaches the issue or frankly even how extraterritoriality comes into play here.

Before anyone starts accusing Weapon of anything, did you pause to ask why this decision was made?

Weapon did the copyright due to the Weapon-UK going back on their own word. The two bands had decided to co-exist since 2005 when Weapon-UK reformed for live gigs. (Weapon having formed in 2003, when Weapon-UK was split up). The British band started harassing Weapon since the latter's recent climb in popularity after signing with Relapse Records. This is when Weapon and their lawyer Eric Greif copyrighted the name to ensure their own future; if you do a little research, you will find that Weapon-UK contacted everyone with the name Weapon with their own copyright claim. Unfortunately, their own plan backfired on them.

Weapon took the high road in all this, by asking people on their Facebook page to NOT cyber bully Weapon-UK (something that the Brits were doing on Weapon's page). They were perfectly okay with the co-existing with the British band because it's not like anyone would have confused the two bands. Weapon-UK brought this upon themselves.

This has nothing to do with trying to be the next Metallica. Weapon are just looking out for themselves, as any clear-thinking and ambitious band should.

Thank you very much for clearing this up. There was a lot of silly speculation here.

This sort of brings to mind the affair between Middian from Eugene, Oregon (with Mike Scheidt from YOB) getting sued by a completely unknown groove metal band from Wisconsin called Midian.

In that case the antagonist was Midian, clearly a bunch of fucking assholes.

In this case, it isn't as clear. Though the initial topic seemed to paint Weapon CA as the antagonist, AJNA's post seems to indicate the opposite - that it was Weapon UK that started the whole ordeal. But what about Weapon NL? Any background about that case?

Still, there seems to be quite a difference between the Weapon case and the Midian case. In the case of Midian, it was clearly a backwoods garage band trying to grasp attention and cash from Middian. In this case, Weapon CA doesn't seem to be doing this for the money. At least I'm not seeing any indication of monetary damages, whereas Midian claimed such damages from the start.

With that said, I'm listening to some Youtube clips of Weapon CA. I like what I hear!

_________________And they'll tell you black is really white - The moon is just the sun at night - And when you walk in golden halls - You get to keep the gold that falls - It's Heaven and Hell

Nah, seems like if you question them about it they delete your comment. I guess a weapon really is a tool after all.

It's been explained, so there doesn't need to be any further discussion. How much more elaboration does anyone need? There may be one tool in this current discussion and it's not Weapon CA. Perhaps you should read the available facts before unnecessarily calling people out.

Plenty of bands with the same name, from different decades, countries and styles. My point?

Simple. In the early 80s, none of them was famous, and figuring out whether or not there was another or several bands with the same name would have been an impossible task. Several bands with the same, rather cool name is something to be expected in the days before the internet.

However, what the hell went through the heads of those drooling morons who insisted on naming their basement penguin metal bands Rigor Mortis in, say, 2003? Yes, the name is still cool and awesome and whatnot, but a simple Google search would have revealed a pretty damn established band (although split-up at the time, sure) that had three full-lengths and an EP. Yeah, the name might have been "officially" free to use, but I can't figure out why anyone would use the name after a recognized and quite famous band had already used it. Note, though, that most of the younger bands are indeed black metal, and that only reinforces my opinions on the general intelligence level of certain scenes...

It's especially confusing considering that a huge pile of excellent band names were still completely unused. Such as Cephalophore, Boiled Toilet, The Turnip Singers, Silicon Carne, and Necropolis.

Plenty of bands with the same name, from different decades, countries and styles. My point?

Simple. In the early 80s, none of them was famous, and figuring out whether or not there was another or several bands with the same name would have been an impossible task. Several bands with the same, rather cool name is something to be expected in the days before the internet.

However, what the hell went through the heads of those drooling morons who insisted on naming their basement penguin metal bands Rigor Mortis in, say, 2003? Yes, the name is still cool and awesome and whatnot, but a simple Google search would have revealed a pretty damn established band (although split-up at the time, sure) that had three full-lengths and an EP. Yeah, the name might have been "officially" free to use, but I can't figure out why anyone would use the name after a recognized and quite famous band had already used it. Note, though, that most of the younger bands are indeed black metal, and that only reinforces my opinions on the general intelligence level of certain scenes...

.

Well, i agree with what you say, but clearly that wasn't the case of Weapon. first of all, Weapon UK has not the same level of "fame" like, you say, Rigor Mortis. Indeed, if was not for this tread, maybe i never know about them (and im a NWOBHM sucker). Other thing that most of you tend to forget is that not every band choose a name because its "sounded cool", but are very personal reasons to put aband name. If you read past interviews with Canada's Weapon their clearly had a reason to choose that name and fits very well for the sound of the band. Iron Maiden trademark their name to avoid changing their name in the late 70's (there was another Iron Maiden with an album in the 60's).

Weapon (Can) has stated in interviews that they are intending to turn a profit with the band's music and brand, so trademarking the name is obviously in their best interest. Whether or not you like or agree with what they did is another story, of course. For their goals they did what they needed to do.

WG: A trip through the Metal Archives found another band operating under the “Weapon” moniker. Has this been resolved? Did you ever think that the true Weapon would ever have the legal backing to do something about this, other than drive to their town and “knock on their door”? For other bands out there who have experienced similar problems and don’t have a clue how to solve them, how does one tackle such an obstacle?

VM: When I formed the band in 2003, I was aware of an obscure NWOBHM band of the same name, but they were split-up. If they were active I obviously wouldn’t have chosen the name WEAPON. Around 2005 they started doing live gigs again, why I don’t know, but they contacted me asking that I should change the name. They were polite about it, and I got back to them clarifying that the two bands play such vastly different styles of metal, no one would ever confuse the two. To drive the point home, I even sent the main guy of the band a ‘Within The Flesh Of Satanist’ tape. Of course once he heard it, he was in total agreement with me and we amicably agreed to coexist. I didn’t hear from them again. I guess they went on their merry way doing live shows (they STILL don’t have an album out) and we proceeded to release two EPs and two full-length albums. Fast forward to summer 2012, and we are on tour with Marduk, 1349 and Withered all across North America; album number three is en route. Weapon-UK contacted Relapse Records with some copyright claim and naturally this concerned our record label, who do things by the book. Before any legal steps came into the picture, I personally reached out to these guys to see what the issue was. As far as I was concerned, we had agreed to coexist and there were never any issues from our side. Long story short, they didn’t wanna play ball. They demanded we change the name. Yeah, no fucking way, pal. We are three albums into our career now, we aren’t changing anything. WE are WEAPON. So our legal muscle / metal shaman Eric Greif did what any good lawyer and friend should – he trademarked the name WEAPON for us in the UK (2625821), USA (85685112) and Canada (1598895). Without boring you with a bunch of legal jargon, let’s just say that Eric ensured that this other band wasn’t going to cause any more problems for us, which again I assert, was started by them to begin with.

On the other hand, Weapon-NL were completely understanding and cooperative about the whole thing. Eric sent them a friendly email saying that we have trademarked the name, and they immediately took steps to change things. It’s not like one day we just decided to start enforcing laws upon others, we really have better things to do, like write music, release albums, tour, etc. Eric Greif is a very busy entertainment lawyer, an university professor and the overlord of the Death back catalogue. But don’t fuck with us. These are the cards we were dealt, and we are playing to win. And no, I never imagined we would have legal backing in any capacity. I am very much a “knock on the door and sort it out” sorta person, so this is all very new for me! It’s better this way, because now I won’t have any assault charges.

If your band has any desire to stick around, I strongly advise that you explore the legal facets of being in a professional band. It’s worth the time and effort. That’s what we have learned out of all this.

_________________

Mike_Tyson wrote:

"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

At first I was pretty sour about how childish the whole situation seemed, but after hearing quite a few different sources saying that they were initially going to coexist before the UK Weapon suddenly started demanding they change, and the Weapon NL just wound up being unfortunately caught in the crossfire as a side effect, I can really see why it all happened. I still think that since it's such a generic word that it's kinda lame and looks really dickish if you don't know the whole story (like how I didn't), but for the most part the band member in that interview seems like he's acting like a human being instead of a money hungry cunt.

I'm pretty much in the same boat as BastardHead. I initially thought Weapon were acting pretty sleazy, but after reading about the UK band's actions, this seems like best way to deal with the situation.

Trademark Weapon are still morons. Not only do they choose a crappy band name, they did so knowing there was another band that had already used that name. If I were to form a band and decided upon a name and checked the Archives to see if any other band had used it and found a demo-only band from 1983 that was since disbanded, I would not use the name. If you can't bother getting those synapses all fired up when choosing a name for your band, then it's pretty likely that your music won't be that special either, and in this case, it's not.

Quote:

WE are WEAPON.

At least they have their fourth album title ready.

_________________I am a Chinese lady with a pair of big water eyes under the long eyelashes.I don't know how beautiful i am , but people usually say that I needn't do face-painting.

After reading the interview, it seems a bit more understandable, but still a vastly silly situation. I especially feel bad they made the other Canadian band change their name. And the bands changing their names to Weapon UK and Weapon NL is stupid, band names with the abbreviation of a place name after always looks dumb. Not exactly the same thing, but I felt the same way when Kyuss reformed and called themselves Kyuss Lives!